Henson issues statement about Chick-Fila-A

[Pinkflower7783]

Ahhh! What should I do? I love eating here, but now I feel I shouldn't. Mcdonalds Nuggets will never satisfy me.

I'll admit I have eaten there and I love their waffle fries. But I'm sure all places support things we don't agree with you just don't hear about it. I'll still eat at the places I love cause of the food.

 

[Drtooth]

I'm going to say something that I hope doesn't erase everything else I've said here.

I don't believe in boycotting companies because of their views. I don't consume all that much, so my tiny amount of money won't matter one way or another in the long run, you know how crap poor I am.

But beyond that. There's a difference in what Chic Fil A did and what other companies do. Chick's dirty laundry was all over the front yard. Other companies are far more subtle, sneaky, and underhanded in their motives. Once their laundry is aired, well... you have two choices. You throw your hands up in the air and say "whatever! Business is business." or you wind up being a recluse subsiding on your own tomatoes you have to grow from seeds from another tomato. Chances are, if you buy something, it's going to something you don't like... a Super PAC of a candidate you don't agree with, for example. And WORSE things.

Point is, I'm not going to wear homemade underwear because I don't like what a company does. Chances are, the money they lost from me would go out of someone's paycheck before it goes out of someone's pet project.

Though I have personal vendettas against certain places... but I assure you, that's more of a George Costanza-y reason.

 

[Bannanasketch]

http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/regarding-chick-fil-a-and-gay-marriage/

 

[LouisTheOtter]

I'm really enjoying and appreciating everybody's contribution to this discussion, particularly the respect everybody is showing to each other while tackling the issue. I can't speak to how Jim himself would have handled this as I've sadly never met the man, but I have the feeling that the diversity of opinion in this thread fits into the way he conducted his business and approached his work.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of a lifelong Catholic who married a Baptist nearly four years ago. Mrs. Otter started an ecumenical Christian youth group shortly after we tied the knot, and I'm one of her three assistant youth leaders.

We struggle with the correct Christian approach to gay issues nearly every day. There are now two transgender members of the youth group and my wife has been counselling them online for several months. Two other members of our group - including one who, at the age of 15, intends to become a Catholic priest - are members of the local high school's Gay-Straight Alliance, and Mrs. Otter has joined that group in an effort to better understand the issues faced by LGBT teens.

Our approach is the same stressed by several others on this thread - that God calls us to reach out with love, not hate. We refuse to stand by and let one more child get beaten up, mocked or harassed because of how they live their lives. There will be no casting of the first stone on our watch - or God's watch.

So...The Jim Henson Company and Chick-Fil-A.

The Seismic Mike blog post in Bananasketch's link is helpful in that it presents both Dan Cathy's original comments on his view of gay marriage (which he does actually have the right to make as a private citizen in a free society) as well as Chick-Fil-A's official corporate response to the whole uproar, including the insistence that "the Chick-Fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

Now, this wouldn't be the first time a business owner made a questionable comment independently of his board of directors (hello, Colonel Sanders) and, as DrTooth put it, we can't simply boycott everything and everybody who ever did or said anything questionable or we'll be living on Saltines and pushing around rocks for our amusement.

From where I sit, though, JHC has every right to end its association with a business person and/or company that, at best, is sending mixed messages about tolerance of its customers and, at worst, is allowing narrow-minded interests to dictate its supposedly "biblically-based" business operations (quoting the Chick-Fil-A corporate response again).

An earlier post referenced John Denver and The Muppets: A Christmas Together and what I feel was a courageous portrayal of the Nativity. That same special reached out to non-Christians with the song "The Christmas Wish" (by one of Denver's longtime band members, Danny Wheetman), and it seems only appropriate that his lyrics came out of the mouth of the frog that advised us that there was nothing wrong in the least with being green:

"I don't know if you believe in Christmas/Or if you have presents underneath the Christmas tree/But if you believe in love, that will be more than enough/For you to come and celebrate with me."

Enough of the hate. Believe in love, folks. Just like Kermit...and Jim...and Jesus.

 

[jvcarroll]

http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/regarding-chick-fil-a-and-gay-marriage/

Well, I just replied to that rather nicely-written yet one-sided article that is masquerading as being somehow more enlightened than the rest of the rhetoric out there. Here's what I said:

This article is just as insulting as the rest of the rhetoric out there. It’s merely better written. Kudos for that.

I don’t agree with Christianity, but I wouldn’t support organizations that want to end Christianity in this country. THAT’S what the president of CFA is doing. It isn’t that these companies have a belief against gay people or that they just “happen” to be against gay rights. In other words, it’s an either-or proposition for them. One side has to “win” and we must all abide by ONE SET of beliefs therefore eliminating our choice.

CFA gives MILLIONS of dollars to these organizations in order to PREVENT gay marriage and roll back the clock on some of the other rights and protections we already do have. CFA has been LESS THAN HONEST about this point. Your article has too.

I don’t have to AGREE with your BELIEFS in order to fight for your RIGHT to have them. And this liberal person does just that! It works BOTH ways. Both Christians and the LGBT community deserve equal rights in this country. There’s just no rational dialog to be had with a person who believes that granting others equal rights will somehow bring about fire from the heavens. That is just about as hateful and ridiculous as equating gay people the sin of a pedophile. That’s exactly what you did in this lengthy article that did no more to clear up the debate than those you have condemned. I must admit to finding that little gem incredibly insulting. I’m not likening you to Muslim extremists or faith-based terrorists so could we dial-back the rhetoric?

Henson’s Support = Gays + Christians + All Religions, Races & Beliefs = Everybody
CFA Support = Christians (not non-Christians or other religions) = Only the like-minded

It’s clear you turn a blind eye when it comes to your beliefs so I’ve probably wasted my morning reading and responding to this. It doesn’t even mention the dishonesty of CFA’s “recall” of the Henson toys for an ambiguous “safety” issue. That does not demonstrate the integrity that you have portrayed in this article. If this site is about reality, then what about that reality?

I just believe this country is big enough for us ALL to live and thrive, to marry and worship under our own beliefs.

 

[Bannanasketch]

Well, I just replied to that rather nicely-written yet one-sided article that is masquerading as being somehow more enlightened than the rest of the rhetoric out there. Here's what I said:

This article is just as insulting as the rest of the rhetoric out there. It’s merely better written. Kudos for that.

I don’t agree with Christianity, but I wouldn’t support organizations that want to end Christianity in this country. THAT’S what the president of CFA is doing. It isn’t that these companies have a belief against gay people or that they just “happen” to be against gay rights. In other words, it’s an either-or proposition for them. One side has to “win” and we must all abide by ONE SET of beliefs therefore eliminating our choice.

CFA gives MILLIONS of dollars to these organizations in order to PREVENT gay marriage and roll back the clock on some of the other rights and protections we already do have. CFA has been LESS THAN HONEST about this point. Your article has too.

I don’t have to AGREE with your BELIEFS in order to fight for your RIGHT to have them. And this liberal person does just that! It works BOTH ways. Both Christians and the LGBT community deserve equal rights in this country. There’s just no rational dialog to be had with a person who believes that granting others equal rights will somehow bring about fire from the heavens. That is just about as hateful and ridiculous as equating gay people the sin of a pedophile. That’s exactly what you did in this lengthy article that did no more to clear up the debate than those you have condemned. I must admit to finding that little gem incredibly insulting. I’m not likening you to Muslim extremists or faith-based terrorists so could we dial-back the rhetoric?

Henson’s Support = Gays + Christians + All Religions, Races & Beliefs = Everybody
CFA Support = Christians (not non-Christians or other religions) = Only the like-minded

It’s clear you turn a blind eye when it comes to your beliefs so I’ve probably wasted my morning reading and responding to this. It doesn’t even mention the dishonesty of CFA’s “recall” of the Henson toys for an ambiguous “safety” issue. That does not demonstrate the integrity that you have portrayed in this article. If this site is about reality, then what about that reality?

I just believe this country is big enough for us ALL to live and thrive, to marry and worship under our own beliefs.

I'm sorry but I'm a little confused here. What exactly do you disagree with in the post? I feel like this guy made a legitimate argument that people on both sides of the aisle can agree on. All your post does is repeat your complaints toward CFA. Please explain what you don't agree with here.

 

[jvcarroll]

I'm sorry but I'm a little confused here. What exactly do you disagree with in the post? I feel like this guy made a legitimate argument that people on both sides of the aisle can agree on. All your post does is repeat your complaints toward CFA. Please explain what you don't agree with here.

No, other than the closing bullet points, he just rationalized CFA's behavior and conveniently forgot to mention the money being funneled through CFA to deny equal rights to others. That is the objection.

 

[Slackbot]

A very nice rebuttal. I see you responded specifically to the author's lumping homosexuals with pedophiles and mass murderers. That, IMO, was the most inflammatory part of the article.

I find it interesting that while the original article is easy to read, dark gray against a light blue background, the background for your response shades to darker blue, making it very hard to read. Coincidence?

 

[jvcarroll]

A very nice rebuttal. I see you responded specifically to the author's lumping homosexuals with pedophiles and mass murderers. That, IMO, was the most inflammatory part of the article.

I find it interesting that while the original article is easy to read, dark gray against a light blue background, the background for your response shades to darker blue, making it very hard to read. Coincidence?

Thanks! Ha! I did notice that. He did reply to me and I replied to him again. Apparently he's going to form some sort of larger response later on. I just find the article a needlessly self-congratulatory way of preaching to those who already agree with him. I find it more dangerous than the hatespeech because of the sneaky and convenient way it is written. Oh why can't we all get along without having one way of thought supersede another? Here's what I wrote:


Thanks. I both appreciate and take issue with some of your bullet points too...

Henson breaking with CFA is a lot different than people boycotting Oreo due to their publicity photo of a rainbow cookie. Nabisco is merely being inclusive. They are not funding initiatives to prevent Christians from worshiping or thriving under their beliefs. CFA is doing the opposite. You spent paragraphs rationalizing CFA's statements yet conveniently forgot to mention the money being funneled through CFA to deny equal rights to others. Their recent statements inspired Henson and others to explore the deeds behind this rhetoric. It is clear that you have rose-colored glasses when it comes to such issues.

For example, I think Bill Maher is hilariously funny most of the time, but I object when he demonizes Christians or calls to remove Christianity from the fabric of our country because I believe we ALL belong here. CFA-minded people fight so that gays and lesbians are forced to live half-lives unless they accept Christianity. That’s bigotry. If you truly believe that it’s “unconstitutional for laws to be based on religious beliefs” then why would you support CFA? They spend millions of dollars to do just that.

Most of the LGBT community doesn’t care if conservatives “accept” our way of life. We just want the chance to live it on our terms and not the arbitrary rules of a religion we don’t agree with. Also, it’s best to stay away the “lifestyle” buzzword if a meaningful dialog is your goal. It implies that our daily lives are somehow different or inferior to yours or that we all are on some sort of groupthink mailing list together. I assure you that our spectrum or people can be just as different as people of faith. In fact, some of us are people of faith.

Also, equating all sin as equal sin or approaching the subject of gay people using that term in the first place does nothing to further their understanding of the issue. If your purpose is to have a meaningful dialog then please know that sort of language doesn’t really work with those who don’t already agree with you.

This issue has never been about free speech or a difference of opinion. It's about a group of people forcing others to live under their chosen beliefs. My having a gay marriage would not prevent your Christianity. So, why are some Christians trying to deny my rights while retaining theirs? Why should what they believe eclipse what I believe? It’s unnecessary and that’s the point that keeps getting missed in this and other articles about the topic.

 

[Dominicboo1]

I'll admit I have eaten there and I love their waffle fries. But I'm sure all places support things we don't agree with you just don't hear about it. I'll still eat at the places I love cause of the food.

That's true and vice versa! Alex's Lemonade Stand wile I'll like the cause, I didn't care for the glass I had.